header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R v Kepple [2007] EWCA Crim 1339, [2007] All ER (D) 107 (Jun)

Where the defendant is being tried in his absence but counsel continues to act, he should conduct the case as though his client were still present in court but had decided not to give evidence on the basis of any instruction he had received.

He is free to use any material contained in his brief and may cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call defence witnesses. Counsel is entitled to ask questions of prosecution witnesses in as much detail as he wishes based on his instructions, but without indicating what the defendant’s evidence might have been and in the knowledge that he will not be able to call evidence to contradict the answers given.

He is entitled to conduct cross examination on this basis in the hope of either showing that his absent client’s instructions are accepted by the witnesses or casting doubt upon the coherence or accuracy of their accounts.

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll